Best Of British: Irrefutable Reasons To Be Proud Of UK Aid

by Guest Wed Nov 12, 2014 6:37 pm

First topic message reminder :

When Britain is congratulated for doing something extraordinary you want to hear what it is we've done. And when it comes from one of the world's most successful business leaders, Bill Gates, you might listen a little more closely to the detail. This is exactly what happened last night at a special lecture in the House of Lords where Mr Gates robustly applauded the UK's historic contributions to global health through its strong commitment to overseas aid. This can be seen with the UK's current response to the Ebola crisis. But he particularly highlighted the UK's remarkable contribution to the huge progress made in tackling malaria - the oldest and deadliest disease - which in the past 15 years has seen child deaths cut in half and over three million young lives saved.

The event, The Case for Aid: A Conversation with Bill Gates which I was delighted Malaria No More UK helped support, served to remind us of the many reasons to be proud of the Best of British, and rightly so when you consider;

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-whiting/uk-aid-bill-gates-congratulates-uk-on-malaria-aid_b_6131364.html?utm_hp_ref=uk&ir=UK

by Guest Sat Nov 15, 2014 5:45 am

No you are just trying to change your tune now, where again the point is to aid people who need help, you tried to argue based on now you denying people aid based off money where your contribution is minute to the system, to argue also against corruption, thus denying innocent people who need the aid off no wrongs they have done.
Unbelievable .
So again their is no logical to any of your points, countless people have benefited from Aid, to excuse whee there is corruption is just a smoke screen for you wishing to deny people aid, that is what it boils down to, as you do not solve the problem of corruption itself, but just denying the money where it is needed, to people in need of aid. So you are not solving any problems of those who need aid or corruption, thus you are choosing the path of inaction, which as seen is not the natural and rational thing to do with a rel threat. There is of course rel threats to the lives of many who need aid.

So you are arguing based off nothing more than to diminish vastly the help many people have received from the UK, based on your selfishness, where you justify this with an illusion called birth right.
.

by Tommy Monk Sat Nov 15, 2014 5:55 am

Par les vous anglais s'il vous plait.....???

lol!

by Guest Sat Nov 15, 2014 6:03 am

Tommy Monk wrote:Par les vous anglais s'il vous plait.....???

Oh dear Tommy attempting to deflect again ha ha

by Tommy Monk Sat Nov 15, 2014 6:18 am

My last post was clear that we should have an aid budget set by to help people across the world who are facing real natural disasters or in need of Other humanitarian relief.

We should not be routinely funding basic amenities that should be provided by their own govts.

by Guest Sat Nov 15, 2014 6:25 am

Yes we should provide, because at present these governments cannot provide or that some are corrupt, so yes we should help all who need aid. You are now trying to diminish the people ho need aid, gets more absurd by the minute,
People who need Aid are not responsible for corruption, but you are making them accountable for the corruption by denying them aid.
Again absurd

by Tommy Monk Sat Nov 15, 2014 6:42 am

No, they can provide and should provide.

That is why they take the taxes in their countries and why people pay the taxes.

by Guest Sat Nov 15, 2014 6:50 am

No they cannot provide to all people.
We should try to help all, that is the most rational thing to do.

by Tommy Monk Sat Nov 15, 2014 6:58 am

Yes they can easily provide the basic amenities that they take the taxes for.

And many times over if they weren't spending the money instead on the other things mentioned in the links I provided earlier.

Aid should be only for emergency humanitarian relief in disaster situations.

by Guest Sat Nov 15, 2014 7:02 am

Again you are still avoiding the fact all the reasons you provided are being used by you to deny many help. Even though the people who need aid are blameless to the reasons you made. That you want now for them to suffer further, for things they have not done.

That is absurd.

by Guest Sat Nov 15, 2014 7:04 am

Laters

by Tommy Monk Sat Nov 15, 2014 7:18 am

More waffle....

I am advocating that money taken in taxes by these nations are used in the correct ways.

And if we have any involvement at all then it should be in exposing fraudulent activities of those responsible for misappropriating funds and making things right.

by Guest Sat Nov 15, 2014 2:20 pm

Yes advocated to deny aid, based off nothing the people who need aid have done. You correct the problems out there whilst not diminishing the aid given.
Seriously you are one selfish child, in every aspect you debate on, it is and always has been about Tommy, not anything else. You need to look at the needs of everyone, not just yourself.

by nicko Sat Nov 15, 2014 2:38 pm

If Aid is to be given it should not be in money given straight to Goverments as the temptation to "hive" a little off here and there is hard to resist for some. It should be given in the form of food, Farm implements, help with finding water,building much needed housing, [we could do with some of that here] funding experienced British people to cost these projects and to give out the money straight to the Contractors who are providing who are doing the work and cut out the"middle men" and stop all the bribes!

by Tommy Monk Sat Nov 15, 2014 2:48 pm

Didge, you make the debate about me rather than address the points.

I have shown that the money is in many cases misused, stolen and given to countries for basic amenities while they themselves have plenty of money to spend on space programmes and fighter jets and other military hardware, and other expensive govt bureaucracy.

Countries have their own money to provide the basic services.

It is not our tax payers responsibility to pay for any of this.

by Guest Sat Nov 15, 2014 2:57 pm

Well because your points are based on your needs, which is very relevant to the debate, which exposes your issues, like selfishness, so they are very important to the debate. That we need to get to the bottom of why you wish to deny people who are blameless aid, based off nothing they have done. You use excuse to deny them, thus making it clear you do not have their best interest at heart, because you want to tackle the problem of corruption by making those who need aid suffer even further.

That is illogical so it is important then to get at the real reason for your claims here, which is your own selfish needs. We see this in every argument you have, when you go on constantly about "your rights" as if nobody else is important .

You can still give the same level of aid and at the same time try to resolve the corruption issue. Your input to the economy, being minimal, to then use this as if you have a right to deny others aid, is again born from your selfish needs.
So in this case it has relevance to talk about why your views are based on a wrong principle.

by Tommy Monk Sat Nov 15, 2014 3:19 pm

It is not our responsibility to pay for others whose countries have their own money to pay for them.

I have shown the gross misuse involved.

Aid should be available only for humanitarian needs in disaster situations.

I suppose you think this is a good use of British peoples money....

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/535739/Argentina-paid-millions-from-Uk-foreign-aid-budget

Maybe you should read this too....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2793383/foreign-aid-waste-money-know-ve-advised-britain-spend-writes-gordon-bridger.html

by Guest Sat Nov 15, 2014 3:24 pm

It is always are responsibility to help people in need.

Again you are trying to deny people aid, off nothing they have done, but what others have done, making them culpable tot he corruption which is absurd.
The fact is they still need aid and any aid that gets through to them, saves lives.

by Tommy Monk Sat Nov 15, 2014 3:48 pm

So your argument is throw enough money at it in the hope that some of it actually gets through to the people who need it...!?

Completely ignoring the fact that the countries in question have their own money that they could spend on the people if they wanted to....

I'm glad you can be so over generous with other peoples money....

by Guest Sat Nov 15, 2014 3:54 pm

Yes I am willing for some loss of money whilst also trying to deal with corruption. As the greater part of the aid is getting to the people who need it. As when you weigh up the pros and cons here, the value of humans will always outweigh the value of money.

So you are placing money above the value of humans.
taking as back to how your views are based on selfishness

by Tommy Monk Sat Nov 15, 2014 4:48 pm

It's not just about corruption dodge you bell end!!!

We are handing billions of our tax payers pounds over to countries who already have their own money!!!!

Don't you get it???

by Original Quill Sat Nov 15, 2014 4:58 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:It's not just about corruption dodge you bell end!!!

We are handing billions of our tax payers pounds over to countries who already have their own money!!!!

Don't you get it???

What is your point, Toms? It's not corruption and you haven't mentioned your pet peeve, welfare. You obviously have some nefarious plot in mind.

Do you think the money is being diverted to research into alien technology? Is it payola for the guys who killed Kennedy? Funds for the Solar Warden? Get to the point, man.

by Guest Sat Nov 15, 2014 5:04 pm

Are bless, Tommy knows he has no rational come back and thus insults me by calling me bell end .

Guess that is him conceding the points I made.

These countries may have money, thought is is not enough. Thus that is not a reason to not help people as again you are placing money over the value of humans. Our money as you call it, even though what you contribute is minute, is being put to good use, where much of it is going to help people who need it. You do not make distinctions without factoring the affect it has on those who need aid. All you do is because some wrongs happens with corruption, you want to do another wrong by denying them aid.

You see how you fail to understand the logic of arguments?

by Tommy Monk Sat Nov 15, 2014 5:23 pm

They have their own money.

We should not be giving them ours.

by Guest Sat Nov 15, 2014 5:36 pm

Yes we know you are selfish and this is your only argument to attempt to deny people the aid they need, you do not need to repeat that you are selfish.

by Guest Sat Nov 15, 2014 5:37 pm

Back later

by Tommy Monk Sat Nov 15, 2014 5:49 pm

Did you read any of The links I posted...???

by Guest Sat Nov 15, 2014 6:32 pm

I have read them before Tommy, hence why I know how to counter all the illogical arguments against sending aid.
I have read these views countless times before.

by Tommy Monk Sat Nov 15, 2014 6:44 pm

You counter nothing.

Only in your own delusions....

by nicko Sun Nov 16, 2014 7:43 am

Errrrrrrrrr-------the post I made earlier, is it a good idea or not ,or are you two so wrapped up with your own arguments you ignore other opinions?

by Guest Sun Nov 16, 2014 7:57 am

nicko wrote:Errrrrrrrrr-------the post I made earlier, is it a good idea or not ,or are you two so wrapped up with your own arguments you ignore other opinions?

You did make a post earlier, you never asked anyone a question but just gave a point of view.

If Aid is to be given it should not be in money given straight to Goverments as the temptation to "hive" a little off here and there is hard to resist for some. It should be given in the form of food, Farm implements, help with finding water,building much needed housing, [we could do with some of that here] funding experienced British people to cost these projects and to give out the money straight to the Contractors who are providing who are doing the work and cut out the"middle men" and stop all the bribes!

Which is your view on how the aid could be provided, not on the argument here which is about continuing to provide aid, or Tommy's view which seeks to deny aid based off poor reasoning where he values money above human values.
I think you will find in many cases, aid is given out in food and applied to projects where they build infrastructures etc, but I have made no points on this and as seen my interest was in regards to the poor views and arguments Tommy makes to try to deny aid to people who need it. His arguments are nothing but a smoke screen to his true views as to why he wishes to deny people aid.

by nicko Sun Nov 16, 2014 10:11 am

Well, that is not an answer, do you agree with this or not? Tommy and didge your answers please.

by Guest Sun Nov 16, 2014 10:16 am

nicko wrote:Well, that is not an answer, do you agree with this or not? Tommy and didge your answers please.

My view is onto help people who need aid. Again the value of human life will outweigh any reason to deny them aid. Yes we would like all things to be done in the fashion you provided, but it is not always possible Nicko and to set a precedent that could again cause people to suffer is to me not a viable approach.

by nicko Sun Nov 16, 2014 10:28 am

Didge, can't see how aid properly distributed could contribute to not helping people.

by Guest Sun Nov 16, 2014 10:47 am

nicko wrote:Didge, can't see how aid properly distributed could contribute to not helping people.

By placing restrictions on aid to countries yes it could mean more people are denied aid, again off no things they have done themselves.

by Tommy Monk Sun Nov 16, 2014 3:13 pm

I agree nicko, aid should be in the form of equipment and machinery etc. Not cash that can be ripped off.

But then, what's to stop people then selling the machinery aof Other equipment?

My proposal is much more simple and effective. Foreign countries use their own money on their own people.

by Original Quill Sun Nov 16, 2014 4:55 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:They have their own money.

We should not be giving them ours.

People give money to tho already wealthy all the time, Tommy. Haven't you ever heard of, the rich get richer? The wealthy give to nieces and nephews, who have already inherited from their own parents, and they invest it and get still richer. Don't you remember the story of Mitt Romney, former candidate for president? $20-million a year, and he never had to lift a finger. (Their are binders and binders of stories).

In fact, the one thing they don't want to see happen is money going to the poor. Do you? In proper circles that is frowned upon. Give it again to the rich in the form of tax breaks, they says.

by Tommy Monk Sun Nov 16, 2014 5:07 pm

Not at all quill.

I have proved the misappropriation of UK taxpayer funds through the foreign aid scam.

And I want UK tax payers money spent on UK citizens.

We have many poor and homeless people and various others who need the money.

by captain Sun Nov 16, 2014 5:27 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Par les vous anglais s'il vous plait.....???

Que voulez-vous dire?

by Tommy Monk Sun Nov 16, 2014 5:42 pm

Mean Didge is talking shit and wanted him to say it in English.....

by Guest Sun Nov 16, 2014 5:46 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Mean Didge is talking shit and wanted him to say it in English.....

Irony at its best..

Did you forget the word "I".

Talk English son, that just looks like I am mean and talking shit, as if a statement.
Not that is what you mean.

Irony ha ha oh and karma

Priceless

by Tommy Monk Sun Nov 16, 2014 6:07 pm

Seeing as how I posted it and as a direct answer to a direct question, it is acceptable to leave out the "I".

And you complain to me about context.....

lol!

by Guest Sun Nov 16, 2014 6:09 pm

No it makes no logical sense doing that, it read as didge is mean.

By posting the lol, you know I am right buddy ha ha, that is conceding on your part.

by Guest Sun Nov 16, 2014 6:13 pm

Two points give you away Tommy when debating easily, though they are many more tells that do give you away, but these two are very clear.

When you have no answer, the sentences widen in your posts, the second is the lol being used.

That is playing the deflection card mate.

You do it often.

by Tommy Monk Sun Nov 16, 2014 9:29 pm

And yet again, Didge makes more unfounded statements and then declares himself the 'winner'...!!!

lol!

And as usual he latches on to a completely inconsequential and minor point to do this after being completely annihilated in the main topic of debate....

by veya_victaous Sun Nov 16, 2014 9:37 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:I agree nicko, aid should be in the form of equipment and machinery etc. Not cash that can be ripped off.

But then, what's to stop people then selling the machinery aof Other equipment?

My proposal is much more simple and effective. Foreign countries use their own money on their own people.

OK can we stop playing the game where we pretend that we are not giving aide to be allowed to trade with them Rolling Eyes

there is some real aide but a fair chunk falls into this category.

I mean seriously I know my nation give 100 of millions to corrupt dictators in order to be able to have access and potentially exploit their markets.
it is a political convenience that is all, do you think a politician is gonna say "we are giving dictator whoever 100 million dollars to be allowed to sell wheat without tariff, so our wheat producers can make more money" essentially many of the 'aide' transactions are just getting the general public to pay the trade costs so one of out rich corporations can make more profit.

So if you stop aide you will have even less trade partners, and you want out of the EU too so Who will England trade with? Suspect

by Tommy Monk Sun Nov 16, 2014 9:55 pm

And how much do they pay us to have access to our markets...???

You ignore the simple basic underlying fact that THEY WANT TO TRADE WITH US as It means we are already putting plenty of money their way.

by veya_victaous Sun Nov 16, 2014 10:10 pm

While it is true they want to trade they don't care who with....
So they choose the ones they give them aide..
So fine stop giving them Aide and US Australia Canada or some other European nation will exploit the market instead.

your nation and mine and the USA all want to trade with as many as possible and have as much advantage as possible we often achieve this by 'gifts' to corrupt officials which because our democracies don't really approve of we rename Aide through fancy accounting.

there is real aide too it is purposely muddled up to complicate the issue. the irrefutable fact is we are giving Aide as much for our (more correctly our big businesses) benefit than anything else.

And Sorry Tommy Life's not Fair, Again if it was Britain would Never have had an Empire built from the wealth stolen form others.

by Tommy Monk Sun Nov 16, 2014 10:17 pm

But didn't you already say that other nations are already handing over aid too...???

And you are readily admitting that this aid money is a complete sham as It is not about giving to people in need but to line the pockets of corrupt officials for The benefit of Other businesses.....

by veya_victaous Sun Nov 16, 2014 10:33 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:But didn't you already say that other nations are already handing over aid too...???
Yes the other Big Economies do it is part of maintaining our dominance, like I said you can stop and the portion of the trade you get will be snapped up by one of us.

And you are readily admitting that this aid money is a complete sham as It is not about giving to people in need but to line the pockets of corrupt officials for The benefit of OtherOUR BIG businesses.....

yes it is true, it is the elephant in the room. Some Aide is legit but a reasonable portion is lining the pockets of corrupt officials so out Big Business can line their own pockets.... creates jobs jadda jadda whatever reason we give for supporting Corporations.

I dont 'agree' with it, but that is reality of the current global economy

by Tommy Monk Mon Nov 17, 2014 1:52 am

Exactly why this sham has to end.

by Sponsored content